Maureen, Pay Attention and Try Looking in the Mirror. You are Only Driving Yourself MORE Insane!

Here’s a shocker….. I didn’t hear anything from Maureen. I didn’t really expect to. I am just a little blogger from nowhere. I suspect in all reality that she feels she would be wasting her time, and that I am only out for publicity to further my own blog. No problem. I was prepared for no reply from her, so I was a little light on my comments yesterday. Which will just lead me to thoroughly vet her wimpy whiny temper tantrum today. Here we go- piece by piece, blow by blow.

Maureen starts with this:

A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."

Amazing! The woman has a career of make-believe, and apparently LIVES in make-believe as well. How is that her being 46 and unmarried is the fault of men? First we must assume by her statement that she actually WANTS to be married. With that being the case, has she ever analyzed herself, to find the answer? This sounds kinda Neanderthal in thought. What, does a man stick a flag in her and claim her his, and the viola- your married? Don’t think so. Maybe no one has ever asked her to marry. IF this is the case, then has she asked herself if she has ever sent out any signals that would show that she WANTS to be married? If she has been asked, but they aren’t the right man, well then maybe she is dating the wrong men. Does she apply ANY accountability to herself at all? It is just that men don’t want her because she is successful? These are some serious mental loops one must jump through in order to deny any responsibility for your life circumstance. Are there no “successful” women who are married? Do we also sense a bit of condescending attitude towards women who take the role of nurturers or caretakers? Good grief! So, if your gift or desire in life is to be a nurturer, then that is the only reason men marry you? Is she insinuating that women sell themselves short and become nurturers in order to get married? Does this mean these women are actually master manipulators? Or are these women just ungifted ninnies so therefore men want to marry women they can control and make subservient? There are so many things wrong with this statement- we could go on for pages. The ultimate outcome boils down to this: she is the problem, not ALL MEN! Do some men feel this way? Sure! But then she assumes that men who marry personal assistants ONLY want to marry them because they are “underlings?” I think I made my point, on to the next.

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.

HUH? “A trend?” I think men have all along wanted to marry women who show the qualities of being able to “tend” to them. Just as all along most women have been interested in marrying men who can PROVIDE for them. I can’t remember the last time I went searching for a husband at the local homeless shelter. We also have the part where she points to “famous and powerful men.” What is she saying? Famous and powerful men are insecure, control freaks, Neanderthals, or what exactly? I know some dumb redneck types that only take up with young women in the same type jobs. Also, does this mean that she finds ONLY famous and powerful men worthy of her hand in marriage? Again, we could dissect this statement for days on end. On to the next.

Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.

Okay- here’s ONE major piece of the puzzle. She is not hanging around the “right” kind of men. A man that views women who tend as starry eyed servants worshipping their “Sun Gods,” he has some issues of his own, and is NOT the marrying type. PERIOD! This SMACKS of an elitist attitude of global proportions. IF women who are caretakers and nurturers are looking up to the men they tend to, it is because they are looking for their counterpart! THIS IS NORMAL! It is not about putting these men into “god” roles, it is about finding the person who completes you. A restaurant will not be successful with all Chefs and no one to serve the food. I don’t take issue with women looking upon the men as “the moon, the sun, and the stars.” I hope any woman who gets married DOES look to her husband in this way. I take issue with the reference to this taking a leap from looking up to a man to “salaaming their Sun Gods.” There are some men and women like this in the world, true- but finding examples of this doesn’t begin to justify painting such a broad brush over men and women in general. Not all men are alike. If I used a an example of one other woman to paint Maureen in the light of “ALL women want their Daddy’s,” trust me- she would take issue with this.

In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals.

I can hardly contain my laughter at such a childish view. Maureen really does view herself as an expert, yet she is so clueless. She seems to imply that the Hollywood dictates why people get married. WOW! I am not even going to begin to pick apart any of the other sludge in this part. Not sure where the feminists begin and end in blaming Hollywood, and yet, embracing it all at the same time. This has to be confusing to try and keep up with for them.

In James Brooks's "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Mr. Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm.

Maureen, try to repeat after me, “Movies are for ENTERTAINMENT, not world view or compasses for life decisions.”

The same attraction of unequals animated Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," a 2003 holiday hit. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese. (I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?)
Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.

Maureen…ENTERTAINMENT. Okay hun. Maureen, you are not sounding very affectionate right now. You are slamming women who don’t speak English, or at least attempting to portray them as mere objects. I see just a little bit of projection here. I also feel that your TRUE anger stems from realizing that "Cinderalla" was just a fairy tale, and "Prince Charming" does NOT exist. Hint for you here, neither does Cinderella. How affectionate are you Maureen? I mean SINCERE affection, not the played out type. Where is your soft side Maureen? I wouldn’t want to be around you for much longer than a New York minute, and I am not looking for a loving life-partner in you. If you, or any other woman is seen as “selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection,” try looking at yourselves and stop blaming men. What equality do you seek Maureen? Where is it that you don’t feel equal? Don’t even get me started on how feminist women DON’T seek equality; they seek domination. They manipulate men to no end to try and achieve it. I seek equality, I know where I am not treated “equal” to men, but I work on these areas in my life without ALIENATING men and manipulating them. You do show signs of narcissism sweetie. You won’t accept blame or accountability for your own disappointment in your life circumstance. In order to justify that men are not attracted to women who “seek equality” you trash men. There is nothing wrong with ANYONE seeking a partnership with people that are affectionate, nurturing and caring in nature. NOTHING! MAN OR WOMAN. If you do not show these qualities, then you will attract men who don’t want these qualities. It is like dressing in fishnets and stiletto heels and wondering why you only attract men who seek only sex. Psychology 101, Maureen.

As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."

Another sign of narcissism, Maureen. You seek only statements that support your own theory that you NEED to cling to in order to keep from accepting blame and accountability.

A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors.
As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.

Hmmmm, and I seem to think that men who put their career above relationships are more likely to be less nurturing to relationships and more likely to invest their time and energy into self-important thing. This does NOT mean that ALL successful men do this, nor does it mean that I think ALL successful men are narcissists. It means that I will look for the kind of man that wants what I want. A marriage that is based on two people who put their marriage FIRST! It is about recognizing what is important to people and seeking mates in life that share the same values. This is actually VERY SMART!

"The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.

Oh my, so where do we even start on this one. Shame on men not wanting to raise children who are not their own due to their wife’s extramarital affairs. Shame, shame. I think this just supports what I said about people seeking “life partners” are seeking others with the same values as opposed to seeking one-night stands. Women, who do not value the role of women in a marriage, probably do have a tougher time getting married. This is LIFE!

A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

Hmmmm, so smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives? Imagine that. Makes perfect sense to me. The key here, I think is “smart men.” It is very smart to seek a life partner who’s values will compliment your life instead of compete with it. When BOTH people in a marriage are ambitious in their careers, who is tending to the marriage? When do they see each other in order to nurture the marriage? My most important job in life is raising my children; therefore, I seek a husband that would support me in the role of staying home with my children as much as possible. I do not seek a man that would want me to work a career that is demanding of my time. I want to tend to my family. So I seek a man that wants me to. I know you think this makes me weak and meek. YOUR issue, not mine. I know my IQ, I know my strength, and I know my importance. This is MY choice to live out what makes me happy. If career makes you happy, then invest in it, and stop complaining if this is not attractive to some men as marriage material.

So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

To answer the first question here- YES! It was a cruel hoax, but not for the reasons you may think. It is cruel because it leaves women like you on some kind of self-imposed pedestal to look down upon women who do not seek their self-worth through a career. You sold us the trumped up notion that this movement would give women MORE choices and MORE freedom. Instead we have women with mental illnes like never before. We have women trying to balance family, career, marriage, PTA, and "ME" time because the Feminists have convinced them that this is the "ultimate woman" and that it is "Freedom." The feminist movement was supposed to ba about women who CHOOSE to work being able to without public scrutinizing, but delivered public scrutinizing from feminists onto women who value being a "caretaker or nurturer." You try and shame women as being stupid or selling out ALL women if they choose family over career. Now, you want to blame us for "taking all the good men." You are the one who disvalues our role in life to nurture our husbands and children, but you have not succeeded in "dumbing down" men enough yet to convince THEM that this is disvalued, and now you are ticked and whining about it. The feminists creating the "choices," but now don't want to live with the consequences of their own. Laughable! Simply LUAGHABLE!
To me, success is raising three children to adulthood and putting them out into the world to make it BETTER. I find some self-worth in achieving success in the work place- but I do not BASE my self-worth upon it. I find great joy in a title on my nameplate that I have worked hard to achieve, but again, it is not the BASIS of my joy. The BASIS of my joy is in the relationships I hold. I will not achieve success in these relationships if I do not TEND to them and NURTURE them. It is what you choose to invest your time, talent, touch and treasure in that will dictate your success. Life 101, Maureen. I truly hope that you start to realize that these “studies” only conclude that facts of life. They do not CREATE the facts of life.

I asked the actress and writer Carrie Fisher, on the East Coast to promote her novel "The Best Awful," who confirmed that women who challenge men are in trouble.
"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said dryly (I took the liberty of correcting your spelling here). "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too."

Women who challenge men are NOT in trouble. Men LOVE a challenge. They just don’t want to compete with a career. Women don’t want to compete with a career either. When seeking marriage, no one wants to compete with a career. I challenge men all the time. I am fighting men off with a stick, literally. I make it clear that I want to serve my future husband, but I also make it clear that I am no dummy! I debate sports, politics, child rearing, news, Middle East policies, etc.. Men want to be challenged. But they want to be challenged in a way that makes them a better man, not in a way that makes them feel LESS like a man. There is nothing wrong with a man wanting to feel like a man. There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to feel like a woman. This is not some psychological phenomenon; this is the world as it is intended to be. You are trying to change the world to a place where you can have your cake and eat it too. The rest of the world isn’t falling for it. You have manipulated men into thinking that the right to kill an unborn child is about “reproductive rights,” you have bullied men into thinking that a moral stand against abortion means they are trying to keep women bare-foot and pregnant, and you have tried to shame men into thinking that they are selfish children who just want a mother, not a real equal partner if they want a wife that values her relationships over her career or has a gift of nurturing and care taking. This last one will not work. You will never change the fact that each relationship needs at least ONE nurturer. You bet all men want to be treated as kings. And all women want to be treated as a Princess. You try and deny it. You try and deny that you don’t want a man to open the door for you, or protect you, or provide for you; but if this is truly the case, then why bother worrying about what kind of woman men want to marry- you don’t need one anyway, right?